Smoke 'n' Mirrors

[Dragon37]

1 hour ago, Judd said:

Whatever, the refs let the riders hold all day including the blatant one on ogopogo that would've been a sack but instead allowed GLENN to run for 12

Yeah, man Saskatchewan got away with some really blatant holds for two games. I know the Bombers get away with them too but geez I don't know how many time the Sask tackles were putting a collar around our DL's neck from behind but it was a lot. Oko and Westie were raped for two games.

[HarryCarayGary]

2 hours ago, TBURGESS said:

The Bombers picked the balls off that our DB's got their hands on. The Riders didn't. Could have been a different game if the Riders held on to a couple of the INT balls that Nichols threw up in the first quarter.

The phantom PI in the end zone at the end of the  half was A game changer. We went into halftime with a 9 point lead instead of a 5 point lead. I have no idea why Jones didn't use his challenge flag on that one. We won by 20, so the extra 4 points wasn't THE game changer.

The Riders made a ton of mistakes that we capitalized on. Carter running it out of the end zone to the 10 then backtracking to the 5 just to get tackled. The stupid onside kick that sucked all the advantage out of their TD and gave us great field position. The stupid onside punt that gave us a short field and more points. My absolute favorite tho was their punt team going to the wrong side of the field because our returner went there and our blockers pointed that way. That one cost them a huge 90+ yard punt return for a TD.

I was wondering before the game who the pretenders and who the contenders were. Now I know for sure.

 

See, and this is what I am say right here, there is nothing wrong with recognizing we got a couple breaks and took advantage of them, while meanwhile they never took advantage of theirs to the same level.  That is what good teams do.

And yeah, agreed that their decision making was brutal.  While it was close at half the Bombers adjusted well at half and the riders did nothing really.  It was pure domination at that point.

[HarryCarayGary]

3 hours ago, Dragon37 said:

Luck didn't win this game. they didn't luck their way into 48 points and luck their way to holding the riders to 28.

There is still work to be done but when is that not the case. I don't know a team that doesn't need to fix something.

Nobody is saying luck won the game, simply that opportunities were capitalized on.  That is what good teams do.  Not sure why people are all hot and bothered by recognizing that when we had something go our way we took advantage of it and when they did they generally didn't.

[HarryCarayGary]

2 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

I'm not going to say it was Saskatchewan's mistake, but rather a brilliantly orchestrated, practiced football play designed and executed perfectly. Like any well designed play, it involves deceiving the opposing team, and leading them to do what you want them to do.

That was a pretty sweet play.  I think it was a combination of beautifully designed, executed and timed as well as a little bit of ineptness on the riders behalf.  only a couple of their guys stayed in their designated lanes lol.  Beautiful play

[Dragon37]

Well you imply it was luck that drove the win instead of work. Bombers made plays and created plays. The only "luck" they got was a bad PI call that may or may not have meant a difference between  and 9 or a five point lead. but really this PI wasn

This one play though really had little impact

[HarryCarayGary]

1 minute ago, Dragon37 said:

Well you imply it was luck that drove the win instead of work. Bombers made plays and created plays. The only "luck" they got was a bad PI call that may or may not have meant a difference between  and 9 or a five point lead. but really this PI wasn

This one play though really had little impact

 

I never implied that, some chose to get their panties in a knot and chose to read it that way.  When you do something good and there is a call that goes your way I consider that a lucky break and capitalizing on it, which is a good thing and a normal part of the game and what good teams do.  We did it, they didn't.  By no means do I say that taking capitalizing.  We capitalized on lots of things like some nice interceptions where it was not even so much bad throws, but the D stepping up and winning that ball.  I love when the secondary is aggressive on a ball like that.  I will take any interception, but when they straight up win that ball, that is a player/team playing with confidence, and after a rough loss a week ago it was awesome to see them step up like that.  While the first half was close and they put up a pile of yards, by the end of the game we dominated, even if we trailed in some stats.  We won every phase of that game in the end.  We took advantage of our opportunities, we clearly won special teams, despite being lit up early the D created turnovers (which has been missing for a while, the ball hawks are back!!!), the O started slow but just got better and better as the game progressed, and I would say we won in coaching as a whole.    One thing that I really liked was I felt Nichols took the next step, or a step towards it.  He has been statistically horrible with heat on him, especially on deeper throws, but he stayed calm in this one and either dumped it off clean or made at least a competitive throw.  Loved that.

[Fatty Liver]

4 hours ago, Judd said:

The refs had no effect on the outcome of this one the same way the fake injuries had no effect on our loss.

The better team murdered the lesser one. The end. 

The riders are no longer a threat to us so leave them in the rear view mirror where they belong.

Is it wrong to get all tingly thinking about stopping the truck and putting it in reverse?

 

 

[blue_gold_84]

 

Wasn't phantom PI on Rogers late in the second quarter. Rogers' left foot makes contact with Adams' right foot. The official got the call right.

[Judd]

2 minutes ago, blue_gold_84 said:

 

Wasn't phantom PI on Rogers late in the second quarter. Rogers' left foot makes contact with Adams' right foot. The official got the call right.

I thought so too and also the official was standing in the perfect spot for an up close view (not that that means much in the cfl)

[blue_gold_84]

Just now, Judd said:

I thought so too and also the official was standing in the perfect spot for an up close view (not that that means much in the cfl)

And it also explains why Jones didn't challenge it. Both angles on the TV broadcast show Rogers' foot making contact with Adams' and that's what causes the latter to lose his footing on the play.

Nothing phantom about it.

[IC Khari]

6 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

Boy, are we ever lucky to have a truly unbiased, non-tinted-glasses-wearer, totally objective football fan on board.  And the first one to boot! So lucky...

[IC Khari]

6 hours ago, Mr Dee said:

Boy, are we ever lucky to have a truly unbiased, non-tinted-glasses-wearer, totally objective football fan on board.  And the first one to boot! So lucky...

[bearpants]

On 9/10/2017 at 3:33 PM, blue_gold_84 said:

 

Wasn't phantom PI on Rogers late in the second quarter. Rogers' left foot makes contact with Adams' right foot. The official got the call right.

Thanks for the replay... shows it quite clearly... I agree that "accidental" PI is an odd call, but this is far from the first time I've seen it called... but if it didn't exist, guys are talented and smart enough to get away with accidental PI all the time... and 10 yards or half the distance (in this case) is much better than spot of the foul...

[SPuDS]

On 9/10/2017 at 10:22 AM, TBURGESS said:

The Bombers picked the balls off that our DB's got their hands on. The Riders didn't. Could have been a different game if the Riders held on to a couple of the INT balls that Nichols threw up in the first quarter.

The phantom PI in the end zone at the end of the  half was A game changer. We went into halftime with a 9 point lead instead of a 5 point lead. I have no idea why Jones didn't use his challenge flag on that one. We won by 20, so the extra 4 points wasn't THE game changer.

The Riders made a ton of mistakes that we capitalized on. Carter running it out of the end zone to the 10 then backtracking to the 5 just to get tackled. The stupid onside kick that sucked all the advantage out of their TD and gave us great field position. The stupid onside punt that gave us a short field and more points. My absolute favorite tho was their punt team going to the wrong side of the field because our returner went there and our blockers pointed that way. That one cost them a huge 90+ yard punt return for a TD.

I was wondering before the game who the pretenders and who the contenders were. Now I know for sure.

didn't realize when a DB's foot clips a receivers calf causing a hitch in his stride and making him fall down... was considered a "phantom" play..

 

and because his spotters, himself and pretty much everyone else saw the accidental clip of Adam's leg maybe? probably why he didn't toss it.

 

[SPuDS]

On 9/10/2017 at 3:33 PM, blue_gold_84 said:

 

Wasn't phantom PI on Rogers late in the second quarter. Rogers' left foot makes contact with Adams' right foot. The official got the call right.

and now people can miss this.. with all the replays shown.. astounds me.

[Dragon37]

2 hours ago, bearpants said:

Thanks for the replay... shows it quite clearly... I agree that "accidental" PI is an odd call, but this is far from the first time I've seen it called... but if it didn't exist, guys are talented and smart enough to get away with accidental PI all the time... and 10 yards or half the distance (in this case) is much better than spot of the foul...

I think they meant incidental. If I am not mistaken, when contact is not intentional they do have to option to call incidental/accidental and just move the ball up 10 yards (in this case half the distance) and award a first down. While it is not common I have seen incidental/accidental called before. In this case the Rider was still trying to make a play on the ball but he stepped on receiver's heel by accident.

[Tracker]

They could have meant occidental. After all, it did occur in the western hemisphere.

[Sard]

4 hours ago, Dragon37 said:

I think they meant incidental. If I am not mistaken, when contact is not intentional they do have to option to call incidental/accidental and just move the ball up 10 yards (in this case half the distance) and award a first down. While it is not common I have seen incidental/accidental called before. In this case the Rider was still trying to make a play on the ball but he stepped on receiver's heel by accident.

Someone already pointed out either earlier in this thread, or in another one discussing the same thing that the penalty is acctually Accidental PI with an excerpt from the rule book.   Incidental is not a penalty.

[TBURGESS]

PENALTY: 1D to Team A, 10 yards in advance PLS
(b) Should the forward pass be thrown across the line of scrimmage, the following
shall apply:
(i) Eligible receivers of both teams have an equal right to the ball and are entitled
to the positions they occupy.
(ii) If an official deems a pass uncatchable and Team B has committed pass
interference, it shall be deemed pass interference on an uncatchable ball. (See Rule
6, Section 4, Article 9 (c).)
(iii) Pass interference shall not be called if it occurs after the ball has been touched by an eligible receiver of either team.
(iv) Inadvertent tripping by a player with equal position shall not be ruled as interference.
(v) Tripping an opponent from behind shall be considered accidental pass interference.
(vi) Screening (face guarding) of an opponent during an attempt to catch the ball is pass interference.

I think we can all agree that it was inadvertent, so the question is do the players have equal position or not. Does equal side by side? Then it's a penalty although the tripping from behind doesn't have inadvertent in it. Does equal mean an equal chance at the ball? Then it's not a penalty. 

[BigBlueFanatic]

You highlighted the answer to your own question.  The sask db was trailing Adams when the trip happened.  By the wording, inadvertent or deliberate is irrelevant in this case.   If you chase and trip, penalty and that's that.  Is it a good rule? Not certain but it seems the call was correct on the Adams PI.

[BigBlueFanatic]

17 minutes ago, TBURGESS said:

(iv) Inadvertent tripping by a player with equal position shall not be ruled as interference.
(v) Tripping an opponent from behind shall be considered accidental pass interference.
 

l agree that it was inadvertent, so the question is do the players have equal position or not. Does equal side by side? Then it's a penalty although the tripping from behind doesn't have inadvertent in it. Does equal mean an equal chance at the ball? Then it's not a penalty. 

 

[BigBlueFanatic]

Good God

admin pls delete lol

sorry folks

Edited September 13, 2017 by BigBlueFanatic
Derp

[BigBlueFanatic]

.

[Mike]

On 9/4/2017 at 0:58 PM, sportmentary2012 said:

If they are picked apart again then I'll be posting and if they destroy the Rider's I'll also post something.

hehe

[JuranBoldenRules]

8 hours ago, BigBlueFanatic said:

You highlighted the answer to your own question.  The sask db was trailing Adams when the trip happened.  By the wording, inadvertent or deliberate is irrelevant in this case.   If you chase and trip, penalty and that's that.  Is it a good rule? Not certain but it seems the call was correct on the Adams PI.

I think it's a good rule.  If you have position you can make contact, if you don't why should you be allowed to get bailed out by interfering with the guy who has won position?